Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-27 Special MinutesApril 27, 1987 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE OLD BUSINESS Review Adoption of Findings Conclusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall MI N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JAMES J. MCKENNA. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Doug Gibbs (Assistant Fire Chief), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Jim Hoel (Assistant Fire Chief), Tom Keefe (Acting Fire Chief), Bob McQueen (Assistant Police Chief), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner). Councilmember McKenna excused himself from the discussion. City Attorney Haney stated the draft of the Findings and Conclusions is being considered at this meeting. Mr. Haney reviewed some of the changes that will need to be amended: In Finding 15 it states "the acoustical fences were shown on Exhibits 58 and 76." Mr. Haney said his understanding was that they were not. That Finding will have to be amended. He suggested that they delete the first sentence and change the second sentence to read: "At the hearing before the City Council Mr. Roy Richards, Noise Consultant with Town, Richards and Charriare, testified that acoustical fences should be required around recreational areas on the site to attenuate noise. Go on to say Mr. Richards recommended that the height and length of these fences be as follows: (it has been laid out in the rest of that). Councilmember Bauch said he believed that the height of (a) recreation is supposed to be 11 feet and not 6 feet, the same as the one above. It is likely just a typo. City Attorney Haney said the other thing he wanted to mention was in Condition 3 about the building masses on page 18 of the BAR. You may note a little bit of difference in what was said by the Council and what was drafted. He said his recollection of what the Council said was in reference to the height of the buildings. Then he queried the Council in maintaining 108 units on site was possible and if that was so whether the Council was trying to prohibit that or was just regulating height and the Council indicated height. He thought the Council also indicated that it would retain .jurisdiction to see if there was some means of patting 108 units on the site. The Council did not specifically say that they would consider an alternative to height reductions themselves, some other way of massina the buildings. He said he put that in because it was his understanding that it may not be physically feasible to reduce the height of some of the buildinns because the roof line might actually go into the dirt. That being the case he left it a little hit more flexihle so the Council could consider the possihility of some nther massing of the buildinns. He said the Council should consider that. With respect to the condition No. 4 on nage 18 the last sentence beginning on the page says "Existinn alder trees on the R -1 zoned portion of the site shall be retained except as may be necessary to accommodate the planting of the evergreens or as may be necessary to remove dead or unsafe trees." He said he would recommend that the sentence be added to "or as may he necessary to comply with the conditions of any building or any permits renuired by the City." It may be that part of the drainaae system for this site will go into that R -1 area and that would require removing a tree or two to put in that drain system. He understood that was proposed. This gives the Plannina Depart- men and the Building Officials some authority to allow some additional alders to be removed should there be a requirement to construct some of the farilities required by the hermit. Councilmember Bauch said the first comment he would like to make is that also included was the Findings, Conclusions, Decisions, in regards to the adequacy of the FEIS because they have never been adopted other than by motion. City Attorney Haney said yes. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27. 1987 Page 2 Review Adoption of Findinns conclusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal contd. ye) Councilman Bauch said the first auestion he had then going on into the BAR decision was the auestion hP had raised about the hearing record of the appeal to the FEIS. Whereas we agreed, maybe it is in there, and maybe they covered it but there was lots of new material hrought up and he felt that someplace around 7 or 8 of the procedural findings is some mention should be made to this hearing record. It is just saying that we adopted the FEIS just the way it was as letter perfect. Tt was not letter perfect, but it was adequate under the law is what you say in the final_ but there were lots of things brought out. That hearing record was fresh to all of us as we went on into the BAR. I don't know how or where to put it in there but it is never mentioned in the BAR other than we found it was adequate. City Attorney Haney said a sentence could he added to #8 which says: As a result of such hearino the City Council determined the FEIS to be adequate under the rule of reason and proceeded to consider the record of the FEIS hearing and additional materials in the BAR appeal. Councilmember Bauch said on Page 3 it is Finding under II. the Finding 3, where in talking about the original site landscape plans approved by the BAR and it goes down to where it says the children's nlav area for the project be located in that portion of the site zoned R -1, Single Family, under the apnlicable zoning regulation." We were told both in the EIS hearings and in this hearing that we were not allowed to talk or the R -1 consideration was not a hart of these things and this is saying that they were not brouaht up. I think we should add "which had been contested but ruled not a sub.iect of the BAR." That would be after the end of the sentence. It was in the appeal, that was part of the appeal. It was thought it would be handled some nlace else. He said he proposed that change be made. Council agreed to this. On page 4, Item 10, it says the "maximum height of a single family residence in the surrounding area is approximately 30'" and it should be the "maximum allowable height: Council agreed. Under 11, this goes back to the same of where you take your roof heights from, everything that is in there is correct, but it should be added "and to the south of Slade Way, Slade Way should say to the "west has a street elevation" in that last sentence. On page 5, in (b), recreation area should be 11 feet not 6 feet. City Attorney Haney said he would check that. Councilmember Bauch said on page 8, top of page, last sentence it says "all dumpster enclosures on the site shall be screened by natural vegetation so the dumpters will not be visible from off site," It was discussed it was "dense" natural vegetation year round. On page 9, second paragraph, in the conclusions, the word "more comparable" should be added. It is the same throughout. On page 10, first paragraph "more" should be added to read render "more" harmonious. On page 11, top paragraph, it is not clear whether we are talking about the trees on the alternate or staggering spacing, whether that is clear on the interpretation of what it means. We mean a 10' offset so if viewed they are actually on 10' centers. We want to make sure that is what we get. Councilmember Bauch said in the next paragraph down it was to put the trees along on the inside as a noise barrier. It doesn't say that. Council President Morgan said the idea was to break up the sense of sameness. It should say on both sides of the fence. The Council agreed to this. Councilmember Bauch said on page 14, middle paragraph, it is describing the fence. The last sentence, "and have landscaping installed adjacent to it." It doesn't say both sides. That should be added. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1987 Page 3 Review Adoption of Findings Conslusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal contd. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 P.M. Councilmember Bauch said on page 16, the new finding there next to the last sentence in the first paragraph, "creates harmony" should be "helps create harmony." In the very last sentence in the last paragraph, same page, "this stairstepping of buildings" will reduce the structural massing," should be "help reduce the structural massing." Council agreed. At the very first sentence on the top of page 17, "will help reduce and will render it more harmonious." The second paragraph, page 17, second sentence, "Noise levels caused by 1 -5 may create difficulty for the residents of the westerly facing units in the use of their decks." He said it was his understanding that it was the ones that faced the freeway or the easterly. City Attorney Haney stated he thought he picked up that error. On page 18, Decision, #1, the dumistershall not be visible from off -site year around. It should be "dense natural landscaping." Under Finding, 3B, does it mean that after 6 weeks if we do not have a new proposal from the applicant it is a dead issue? City Attorney Haney said that was correct. City Councilmember Bauch said under (4) he said it was his under- standing that these decisions replace all of the decisions of previous BAR, Is that correct? City Attorney said that was correct. Councilmember Bauch said on page 19, under (6), and the acoustical fences, the last sentence should have "both sides." No. (7), "accessible by pedestrian walkways." City Attorney Haney said the Council did not put it in, but he did, because the Uniform Building Code would not require a rail. Do you want it everywhere? Councilmember Simpson said his concern is for the children who may be walking along there. It could be bushes or railing, to discourage the children. Council President Morgan said when she read the FEIS some of the Council concerns did not show up. City Attorney Haney said the decisions of the majority of the City Council are there. He said he could have drafted a longer document. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE EIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE ADEQUATE AND TO ADOPT SAME. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE AND MORGAN VOTING NO. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE BAR DECISION WITH THE MODIFICATIONS AGREED UPON. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. City Attorney Haney said within six weeks the Council can consider the proposal. Joe Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said while they do not agree with all of the points, they are sensitive to the time period. They are prepared to point out by diagram and to provide alternatives. It should be with the staff no later than Friday of this week, When it has been filed with the staff a copy will be sent to Mr. Goe. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. 0 ION G9RTIED Not aa_Booher, Recording Secretary